131–140 of 187 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not surprising at all, it is just not worthwhile doing from project management perspective, regardless what a bunch of people on Internet think about it.
Or Microsoft doesn't always make perfectly ideal project management decisions.
In some networks, I only have outgoing tcp ports 80 and 443. Does anyone have experience with udp2raw or udptunnel?
This is just insane. Everything except WWW is blocked, so everything must pretend to be WWW???!!! So can anyone explain the purpose of the "source port" and "destination port" fields in the TCP header? :-)
Yes, it is insane.
Any thought if Windows will embed this natively similar to how Linux pulled WireGuard into the kernel?
Licensing issues aside, do we really want to rely on Microsoft to keep it up to date? I can imagine it becoming quickly outdated, particularly in enterprise skews. I think it's best left to the Wireguard team and not Redmond.
Very impressive performance: > While performance is quite good right now (~7.5Gbps TX on my small test box), not a lot of effort has yet been spent on optimizing it > Jonathan Tooker reported to me that, on his system with an Intel AC9560 WiFi card, he gets ~600Mbps without WireGuard, ~600Mbps with wireguard-go/Wintun over Ethernet, ~95Mbps with wireguard-go/Wintun over WiFi, and ~600Mbps with WireGuardNT over WiFi.…
Yes, I am gonna reinstall wireguard on my raspberry pi again. This is amazing news. And I will try and getting my windows server ryzen pc to be a router so I can benchmark all four configs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. My university was using Fortigate back in the day and it had 3 behaviours -Allow with no mitm (trusted sites) -Block with no way around it(all residental IPs, pornsites) -Allow but mitm the connection. The browser would present the classic ERR_UNKNOWN_ISSUER warning that most people would ignore. I couldn't figure out what criteria decided that a certain site needs the mitm treatment.
Ah yes, exactly the kind of intellectual freedom to explore and tinker you'd want to flourish at a university. Better block it! Wild guess: US?
Hungary.
My theory is that it was installed to curb filesharing and then it snowballed into generic blocking of various things on the university network.
>intellectual freedom to explore and tinker you'd want to flourish at a university.
Ah that sounds sweet. Reminds me of the anecdotes I read from the pioneer age of computing that people tell here sometimes. Well, the place I studied at was nothing like that. >_>
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah yes, exactly the kind of intellectual freedom to explore and tinker you'd want to flourish at a university. Better block it! Wild guess: US?
Eh, if you care about privacy you shouldn't be browsing porn without a VPN or tunnel to a trusted server, "intellectual freedom" or not
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Licensing issues aside, do we really want to rely on Microsoft to keep it up to date? I can imagine it becoming quickly outdated, particularly in enterprise skews. I think it's best left to the Wireguard team and not Redmond.
There is no "outdated", wireguard has no extensibility on purpose. You might just have to wait for wireguard2. And security patches will be delivered in the usual Microsoft fashion, 8 tuesdays after the exploit started circulating.
>While performance is quite good right now [...] not a lot of effort has yet been spent on optimizing it, and there's still a lot more performance to eek out of it, I suspect, especially as we learn more about NT's scheduler and threading model particulars. [emphasis added]
Are you suggesting that these performance improvements will be contained in 'wireguard2'? Surely there will be improvements to the codebase, even if they don't involve fixing defects that undermine fundamental security assumptions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah yes, exactly the kind of intellectual freedom to explore and tinker you'd want to flourish at a university. Better block it! Wild guess: US?
Eh, if you care about privacy you shouldn't be browsing porn without a VPN or tunnel to a trusted server, "intellectual freedom" or not
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no "outdated", wireguard has no extensibility on purpose. You might just have to wait for wireguard2. And security patches will be delivered in the usual Microsoft fashion, 8 tuesdays after the exploit started circulating.
In Jason's post, he says: >While performance is quite good right now [...] not a lot of effort has yet been spent on optimizing it, and there's still a lot more performance to eek out of it, I suspect, especially as we learn more about NT's scheduler and threading model particulars. [emphasis added] Are you suggesting that these performance improvements will be contained in 'wireguard2'? Surely there will be improvem…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It gets into the area of "technical solutions" to fight "administrative policy". Yes, that's exactly the point. Sometimes that's the best course of action available to you. If the userspace implementation were to be deprecated that could pose difficulties.
Why would it be an issue? Can't you specify localhost as the endpoint and use the proxy to send it where it needs to go? What is the difference between the implementations?